Types of Utilitarianism

·      Act utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism holds that the morality of an action depends on its specific consequences. According to this view, an act is right if it produces the greatest happiness or utility for the greatest number of people compared to any other available action. This type of utilitarianism requires case-by-case calculation, emphasizing direct outcomes rather than general rules. Jeremy Bentham is closely associated with this approach, as he argued that pleasure and pain should be measured to determine the rightness of actions.

For example, imagine a doctor with five patients in need of organ transplants and one healthy patient who could save them all. Act utilitarianism would suggest that sacrificing the one to save the five maximizes overall happiness. While such extreme cases highlight ethical dilemmas, in everyday life act utilitarianism often applies to practical choices, such as deciding whether to tell a white lie if it prevents unnecessary harm and brings greater happiness overall.

·      Rule utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism argues that instead of judging individual actions in isolation, we should follow rules that, in general, tend to maximize happiness and well-being. The focus is on establishing moral principles that produce the best consequences when consistently applied, rather than calculating utility for every single act. John Stuart Mill’s refinement of utilitarian thought leans toward this approach, as he emphasized the importance of justice, rights, and long-term benefits of moral rules.

For example, consider the rule against lying. Even if lying in a particular case might bring short-term happiness, consistently breaking this rule could undermine trust in society and cause more harm in the long run. Rule utilitarianism would therefore support truth-telling as a general rule, because following it reliably produces greater overall happiness and stability.

·      Preference utilitarianism

Preference utilitarianism shifts the focus from maximizing pleasure or minimizing pain to fulfilling individuals’ informed preferences or desires. According to this view, an action is morally right if it satisfies the preferences of those affected, provided these preferences are rational and well-considered. Unlike classical utilitarianism, which measures happiness in terms of pleasure, preference utilitarianism values respecting people’s choices, making it more inclusive of different understandings of well-being. Philosopher Peter Singer is a prominent advocate of this approach.

For example, imagine two patients choosing medical treatment: one prefers life-saving surgery despite pain, while another prefers palliative care to avoid suffering. Preference utilitarianism supports honoring each patient’s preference, because fulfilling what individuals genuinely want leads to greater overall satisfaction and well-being, even if the outcomes differ in terms of pleasure or pain.

·      Negative utilitarianism

Negative utilitarianism emphasizes the reduction of suffering rather than the promotion of happiness. Its core idea is that preventing pain and harm should take priority because the moral urgency of alleviating suffering outweighs the value of creating additional pleasure. Proponents argue that while happiness is desirable, the moral weight of suffering is stronger, and thus ethical decisions should focus primarily on minimizing harm.

For example, consider public health policy during a pandemic. A negative utilitarian approach would prioritize actions that reduce illness, suffering, and death—such as lockdowns, vaccinations, and medical aid—even if these measures temporarily reduce social enjoyment or economic growth. The reasoning is that preventing widespread suffering takes precedence over increasing happiness in the short term.

·      Quantitative utilitarianism

Quantitative utilitarianism, often linked to Jeremy Bentham, evaluates moral actions by measuring the total amount of pleasure or happiness they produce, regardless of the kind or quality of that pleasure. In this view, all pleasures are equal in value, and morality depends on maximizing the overall quantity of happiness. Bentham proposed the “hedonic calculus” to assess pleasure in terms of factors like intensity, duration, certainty, and extent.

For example, suppose a government must decide whether to fund a sports event or build a community park. If the sports event brings short-term excitement to thousands but the park provides ongoing enjoyment for fewer people, quantitative utilitarianism would calculate which option yields the larger overall amount of pleasure. The decision would favor whichever maximizes the total happiness, without considering the higher or lower quality of the pleasures involved.

·      Qualitative utilitarianism

Qualitative utilitarianism, developed by John Stuart Mill, refines Bentham’s quantitative approach by arguing that not all pleasures are equal—some are higher in quality and therefore more valuable than others. Mill emphasized that intellectual, moral, and aesthetic pleasures are superior to purely physical ones, even if they are less intense or frequent. This perspective highlights the importance of the kind of happiness produced, not just the amount.

For example, consider two leisure activities: watching reality television or reading a classic novel. While both may bring pleasure, qualitative utilitarianism would argue that reading the novel provides a higher form of satisfaction by enriching the mind and character, even if fewer people choose it. Thus, moral decisions should prioritize actions that promote higher-quality pleasures for long-term human flourishing.

·      Two-level utilitarianism

Two-level utilitarianism, developed by R. M. Hare, combines the strengths of both act and rule utilitarianism. It suggests that in everyday life, people should generally follow moral rules (the “intuitive level”) because they usually promote happiness and are easier to apply. However, in exceptional or complex situations where rules may conflict, one should shift to the “critical level,” directly calculating which action maximizes utility. This approach balances practicality with flexibility, avoiding the rigidity of rule utilitarianism and the demanding calculations of act utilitarianism in ordinary cases.

For example, imagine a doctor faced with the ethical dilemma of breaching patient confidentiality to prevent a serious public health risk. At the intuitive level, the doctor follows the rule of confidentiality to maintain trust. But at the critical level, when the risk of harm to others is great, breaking confidentiality may be justified because it leads to greater overall well-being. Two-level utilitarianism thus guides moral agents to use rules in normal life but to apply deeper calculations in rare, high-stakes situations.

·      Total utilitarianism

Total utilitarianism evaluates the morality of actions based on the sum total of happiness or well-being produced across all individuals. This approach argues that the best action is the one that maximizes the aggregate amount of happiness, even if it means creating more lives worth living rather than just improving the happiness of existing people. It is particularly influential in population ethics, where the total utility of both current and future generations is taken into account.

For example, imagine a government deciding between investing in healthcare for the current population or in sustainable infrastructure that benefits future generations. Total utilitarianism would support the option that creates the highest combined level of happiness across both present and future people, even if some individuals in the short term are less satisfied, because the total sum of well-being is greater.

·      Multi-level utilitarianism

Multi-level utilitarianism combines elements of act and rule utilitarianism by applying different levels of moral reasoning depending on the situation. At the “everyday” level, individuals follow general rules that usually promote the greatest good, ensuring simplicity and social stability. In exceptional or complex cases, a deeper, act-utilitarian calculation is performed to determine which specific action maximizes overall utility. This approach allows flexibility while avoiding constant moral calculation for ordinary decisions.

For example, a teacher might generally follow the rule of fairness when grading students (everyday level), but in a special situation—such as a student facing severe personal hardship—she might adjust the grade based on act-utilitarian reasoning to maximize overall well-being. Multi-level utilitarianism thus balances adherence to helpful rules with the capacity for thoughtful exceptions in unusual circumstances.

·      Global utilitarianism

Global utilitarianism extends the principle of maximizing happiness to all people affected, not just a local community or individual group. It emphasizes the moral consideration of everyone impacted by an action, including future generations and distant populations, when evaluating consequences. This approach is often applied to issues like climate change, global health, and international aid, where decisions have far-reaching effects beyond immediate stakeholders.

For example, when a government considers funding fossil fuel industries versus investing in renewable energy, global utilitarianism would prioritize renewable energy. Although fossil fuels may provide short-term economic benefits locally, renewable energy maximizes long-term well-being for people worldwide by reducing climate risks and promoting sustainability. This perspective highlights the importance of considering broad, global impacts in moral decision-making.

·      Local utilitarianism

Local utilitarianism focuses on maximizing happiness and well-being within a specific group, community, or region, rather than considering global or long-term effects. It emphasizes the moral importance of outcomes for those immediately affected by a decision, often making it more practical and manageable in everyday ethical deliberations. Local utilitarianism is useful when resources, knowledge, or influence are limited to a defined population.

For example, a city council deciding how to allocate its budget might choose to improve local parks and public services instead of funding international aid programs. While global aid may increase overall well-being worldwide, local utilitarianism prioritizes actions that directly benefit the city’s residents, maximizing happiness for the population within the council’s immediate responsibility.

·      Hybrid utilitarianism

Hybrid utilitarianism combines traditional utilitarian reasoning with other ethical principles, such as rights, justice, or duties, to guide moral decision-making. This approach acknowledges that strict maximization of happiness may sometimes conflict with important moral constraints, so it integrates multiple considerations to produce more balanced and practical ethical judgments. Hybrid utilitarianism allows flexibility while preventing morally questionable actions that might maximize utility in the short term.

For example, a company considering relocating its factory to reduce costs (and increase profits for shareholders) might face environmental harm to the local community. A hybrid utilitarian approach would weigh overall utility while also respecting environmental rights and justice for affected residents. The decision would aim to maximize benefits without violating fundamental ethical principles, such as fairness and human rights, illustrating a more nuanced application of utilitarian thought.

Features of Utilitarianism

Implications of Utilitarianism